Lyons: Dipping into escrow accounts not a crime?

Published: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 9:28 p.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 9:28 p.m.

That is the closest thing to good news I know of regarding the former owner and real estate broker at now-defunct Century 21 Advantage, which was a Century 21 franchisee.

Deering's once-thriving real estate sales and property management businesses hit tough times after the real estate bubble popped in 2006. But while competitors cut expenses, sales agents who worked for Deering told state investigators that Deering got into a hole, then stopped paying them the commissions they were owed.

The Department of Professional Business Regulation eventually determined that even at times when Deering did pay agents or cover other outstanding debts, he sometimes dipped into escrow accounts to do it.

That is, money that wasn't his but was entrusted to him by clients disappeared, some by way of commission checks written on those accounts to the agents.

This week, a disabled woman who walked with a cane into the Herald-Tribune's lobby asked me a question about Deering: Why isn't he charged with a crime?

Dorothea Rivera, 59, told me that she would have no reason to care except that the man's property management company was the one she gave a $900 security deposit to when she rented a Sarasota apartment in 2010.

After she lived there three years, her clean and undamaged apartment passed inspection in January, and the manager agreed she should get the deposit back.

But the manager is with a company that took over rent collection there after Deering's company was fired because of his severe business problems. Rivera was told she has to get her deposit back from Deering.

Good luck. She says she has had no response to a letter.

No surprise. A state audit of Deering's escrow accounts had to be conducted with very little cooperation from Deering last year. He failed to show for an audit appointment and never provided many requested documents, according to his license revocation report.

But the auditors still determined Deering's escrow accounts were short by at least $158,000.

Companies belonging to Deering have defaulted on loans totaling more than $1.6 million, a news report said last year.

But unlike those debtors, Rivera did not loan money to Deering.

Deering did not even contest the revocation of his real estate license. But he has been arguing with his wife in divorce court. Maira Deering also was his bookkeeper, and one of Albert Deering's filings claims an agreement he signed with her should be void because she coerced and misled him.

How so? Well, he claimed, his wife led him to believe she would not divorce him if he agreed to, among other things, pay back all the security deposits their businesses owed to so many people.

Deering also said he was stressed when he signed that thing, by numerous lawsuits. Several were seeking deposits, and others involved foreclosures or eviction. And, he claimed, “A criminal investigation was under way” and he was fearful he might be jailed.

Rivera only hopes that's a realistic worry. But I see no sign any criminal charge is forthcoming.

The expense and trouble to be risked to seek $900 by way of a civil suit offer but slim odds of getting her money back, Rivera figures. But since people are charged with crimes for shoplifting items not worth $5, she wonders how the heck is it not worthy of a criminal charge when money is taken from an escrow fund?

“That's a civil matter” she was told by a desk sergeant, she says, when she tried to report this to local police.

<p>The state permanently revoked Albert Deering's real estate license last year.</p><p>That is the closest thing to good news I know of regarding the former owner and real estate broker at now-defunct Century 21 Advantage, which was a Century 21 franchisee.</p><p>Deering's once-thriving real estate sales and property management businesses hit tough times after the real estate bubble popped in 2006. But while competitors cut expenses, sales agents who worked for Deering told state investigators that Deering got into a hole, then stopped paying them the commissions they were owed.</p><p>The Department of Professional Business Regulation eventually determined that even at times when Deering did pay agents or cover other outstanding debts, he sometimes dipped into escrow accounts to do it.</p><p>That is, money that wasn't his but was entrusted to him by clients disappeared, some by way of commission checks written on those accounts to the agents.</p><p>This week, a disabled woman who walked with a cane into the Herald-Tribune's lobby asked me a question about Deering: Why isn't he charged with a crime?</p><p>Dorothea Rivera, 59, told me that she would have no reason to care except that the man's property management company was the one she gave a $900 security deposit to when she rented a Sarasota apartment in 2010. </p><p>After she lived there three years, her clean and undamaged apartment passed inspection in January, and the manager agreed she should get the deposit back.</p><p>But the manager is with a company that took over rent collection there after Deering's company was fired because of his severe business problems. Rivera was told she has to get her deposit back from Deering.</p><p>Good luck. She says she has had no response to a letter. </p><p>No surprise. A state audit of Deering's escrow accounts had to be conducted with very little cooperation from Deering last year. He failed to show for an audit appointment and never provided many requested documents, according to his license revocation report.</p><p>But the auditors still determined Deering's escrow accounts were short by at least $158,000.</p><p>Companies belonging to Deering have defaulted on loans totaling more than $1.6 million, a news report said last year. </p><p>But unlike those debtors, Rivera did not loan money to Deering.</p><p>Deering did not even contest the revocation of his real estate license. But he has been arguing with his wife in divorce court. Maira Deering also was his bookkeeper, and one of Albert Deering's filings claims an agreement he signed with her should be void because she coerced and misled him.</p><p>How so? Well, he claimed, his wife led him to believe she would not divorce him if he agreed to, among other things, pay back all the security deposits their businesses owed to so many people.</p><p>Deering also said he was stressed when he signed that thing, by numerous lawsuits. Several were seeking deposits, and others involved foreclosures or eviction. And, he claimed, “A criminal investigation was under way” and he was fearful he might be jailed.</p><p>Rivera only hopes that's a realistic worry. But I see no sign any criminal charge is forthcoming.</p><p>The expense and trouble to be risked to seek $900 by way of a civil suit offer but slim odds of getting her money back, Rivera figures. But since people are charged with crimes for shoplifting items not worth $5, she wonders how the heck is it not worthy of a criminal charge when money is taken from an escrow fund?</p><p>“That's a civil matter” she was told by a desk sergeant, she says, when she tried to report this to local police.</p><p>Rivera doesn't see anything civil about it.</p><p>“That is my money,” she said.</p>